Posted
by
timothy
on Sunday June 16, 2013 @10:20AM
from the drawing-certain-lines dept.

New rules for labs that use chimpanzees as test subjects may be on the horizon. From the New York Times blog: "The Fish and Wildlife Service proposal came in response to a petition filed in 2010 by the Jane Goodall Institute, the Humane Society of the United States, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and other groups. It would require permits for interstate commerce involving any chimpanzees, or for what the law calls 'taking,' which could be anything from harassment to major harm to something as simple as obtaining a blood sample. And those permits, Mr. Ashe said, would be granted only if the action could be shown to benefit the survival of the species.
If the new rule is enacted, it will be a major success for animal welfare groups, a grave disappointment for some scientists and another sign of the profound changes over the last half-century in the way animals are used and imagined in science and popular culture." The L.A. Times lauds the proposed rule change in an editorial.

Leave the chimps alone. In fact, we should dedicate a greater share of the world to the rest of the planet's creatures, and that includes limiting the harmful effects of our pollution and industry not because of politics but simply because we have such a precious and finite resource in this jewel of the Earth and the delicate beauty of Life.

I have included the parent quote as I am astonished at the stupidity. I suspect everyone were is of the opinion that the problem with politicians is that whatever the politics, they are generally greedy and self serving...and they are (generally...ignoring political families) defiantly not stupid.

Ironically this is about *testing* Corporations would love nothing more than to do less...as its expensive and delays product to markets, and would love an excuse to skip killing chips...and then just pay of a few

eh, the belief that politicians are stupid is really important to many people. People often have trouble with the idea of intelligent people doing something different from what they would do and view it as a zero sum, that there is one right answer and either the politician is stupid, or they are. The whole 'conflicting goals' thing really does not factor in to some people's world views.

There are two ways to measure stupidity of ones decisions. The first is to disagree with ones actions. This can be a legitimate measure if the judging party has sufficient knowledge and experience. You're right in saying that most of our media and the general public really don't qualify to do so (unfortunately). The second is to disagree with the outcome. Based on outcome, I'd say the US government is psychotic. This either means that the legislative bodies as a whole are morons, or that they are too

I'm having trouble following the mostly hidden logic behind parent post. It seems to address two distinctly different issues.

With regard to politicians, they are most definitely a self-selected group of persons who are willing, and successful, at advancing their personal agendas by portraying themselves as champions of this or that group. The average amount of lying, fraud, deceit, and associated crimes of politicians is naturally going to be much higher than the average for the general population. Culling politicians would therefore improve the species. It is not about how stupid they are; it is about how their moral compass is all twisted up. So, since effective ostracism (an acceptable form of culling introduced by the Greeks) will not be possible until we have established a lunar colony, using politicians as primates in various experiments should be on the table. (There might be better solutions, but this one is worthy of considering).

WRT using chimps in testing, that is now so bogus. The automobile has replaced the horse and buggy and freed horses for their rightful place as pampered pets (there are now more horses in the USA than there were in 1899-- hoowoodathunkit?) The MRI and computer simulations are now replacing the old fashioned use of chimps in the laboratory. There is no question that sooner or later the nasty old ways of doing biological research are going to become history, just like the horse and buggy, replaced by technology that can do the job faster, better, and without exploiting some other species. The only question is when do we pass the laws that will force today's buggy whip manufacturers to find some better source of employment?

This will cause a shake-up in the research and development industry, as the employment opportunities of persons who have spent their careers developing skills in carving up the brains of primates will be out of work and unemployable. Along with a host of other specialists in supporting roles. A lot of these people are quite likely incapable of finding other work. It requires a certain kind of blockage of normal human empathy to slice and dice a chimpanzee, and without that a lot of job opportunities will be closed to these individuals with their self-inflicted damage to their psyches.

WRT using chimps in testing, that is now so bogus. The automobile has replaced the horse and buggy and freed horses for their rightful place as pampered pets (there are now more horses in the USA than there were in 1899-- hoowoodathunkit?) The MRI and computer simulations are now replacing the old fashioned use of chimps in the laboratory. There is no question that sooner or later the nasty old ways of doing biological research are going to become history, just like the horse and buggy, replaced by technology that can do the job faster, better, and without exploiting some other species. The only question is when do we pass the laws that will force today's buggy whip manufacturers to find some better source of employment?

This will cause a shake-up in the research and development industry, as the employment opportunities of persons who have spent their careers developing skills in carving up the brains of primates will be out of work and unemployable. Along with a host of other specialists in supporting roles. A lot of these people are quite likely incapable of finding other work. It requires a certain kind of blockage of normal human empathy to slice and dice a chimpanzee, and without that a lot of job opportunities will be closed to these individuals with their self-inflicted damage to their psyches.

I don't know much about the people doing research on chimps (though found it fascinating that you couldn't resist essentially calling them sociopaths) but I do a little computational neuroscience. MRI has some serious limitations, and our simulations aren't anywhere close to replacing the need for live subjects and they probably won't be until we're post-singularity.

If you want to argue that the science isn't worth the cost then make that argument, but don't claim the same science can be done without the co

Actually I'm trolling. I'm trying to get some members of the biologic research community to do a little self-examination. I don't know much about the subject, but here is what I do know (now that I have been pushed into articulating it):

1. We are doing more biological research with what are basically 19th century approaches involving the death, pain, and mutilation of animals than we need to be doing. We do not know how much more (which is covered in greater detail in point 3)

Actually I'm trolling. I'm trying to get some members of the biologic research community to do a little self-examination. I don't know much about the subject, but here is what I do know (now that I have been pushed into articulating it):

1. We are doing more biological research with what are basically 19th century approaches involving the death, pain, and mutilation of animals than we need to be doing. We do not know how much more (which is covered in greater detail in point 3)

I'd really like you to back up that "19th century approaches" claim.

2. To do this, we are training grad students, lab techs, and sometimes undergrads who need a biology credit in the intensive use of the ego defense mechanisms of "clinical objectivity" or "clinical detachment." Which is also the conscious suppression of normal human empathy. There is little to no screening done beforehand to determine if these persons have the emotional maturity and self-insight to limit the use of these mechanisms to the biology lab. There is no follow-up of these individuals; not even the ones who are given their walking papers because they are too unbalanced to do the work properly. Yet the clinical detachment that is needed to handle lab animals creates serious problems when it is used inappropriately in relationships, with children, in an office setting, among colleagues, etc.

You obviously shouldn't get emotionally attached to lab animals for a variety of reasons (not all bad ones). But people are good at compartmentalizing. As for your accusations about clinical detachment do you have any evidence for these claims?

3. No one in the biology research field is even seeing this as a problem. Despite the mass murders of the last few years, where the mechanisms of "clinical detachment" are taken to the pathological extreme. There is no discussion of whether it is time to start limiting training in these techniques, no discussion about how to reduce the number of individuals affected, there is not even an attempt to determine the scope of the problem. The closest is the USDA figures on the number of selected lab animals in active use in the USA: that is 1.3 million. But it excludes rats and mice and animals being bred for scientific use but not yet put to that use. The number of lab animals that lab techs and grad students are exposed to in this country has been estimated at between 10 and 50 million. But even with the 1.3 million figure, that is a large pool of persons being trained in the skills of clinical objectivity (with nothing being done to assure that they are capable of appropriately using those skills, or prevented from maybe obtaining a fully automatic rifle if they are not capable of policing their own psyches).

What seems to be necessary is to push the individuals in the biology research community into confronting the absurdity of their rationales and deliberate blindnesses, and get them looking for ways to move the research animal labs out of the 19th century and into the 21st century. Agitating for laws that would enforce limits upon the research communities seems to be necessary, just to get their attention.

Whether such laws are needed is a topic that is open for discussion. That the research community must be pushed into doing a scientific study on the effects of its practices on the psyches of its minions is definitely necessary.

Again all you've done is speculate, you've shown absolutely no evidence for psychological damage among researchers, you haven't even found an anecdote of some spree shooter being a biologist. People c

Leave the chimps alone. In fact, we should dedicate a greater share of the world to the rest of the planet's creatures, and that includes limiting the harmful effects of our pollution and industry not because of politics but simply because we have such a precious and finite resource in this jewel of the Earth and the delicate beauty of Life.

This is about infinite resource of furry beautiful creatures bred specifically for the purpose of (often) having short unpleasant painful life, for the sake of the possibility (patents permitting and money exchanged) of saving...or preventing damage to humans...Discuss.

This has nothing to do with pollution, or the misuse of the planets finite resources. Its about everything from research on dogs means diabetics today don't die, or humans don't do blind by spaying shampoo in baby rabbits eyes (the fact that the discussion is about chimps at all annoys me...as they are prettier). Its not pretty, its ugly science. The only real question is the validity of that science.

> The only real question is the validity of that science.Also the moral price of that science. The discussion is about chimps instead of rabbits because the evidence all points to chimps being almost as sapient as us, the rabbits... not so much. And sapience is pretty much the only thing we can point to when trying to claim humans are "better" than other animals. Take away that yardstick and we may as well be experimenting directly on humans.

Also the moral price of that science. The discussion is about chimps instead of rabbits because the evidence all points to chimps being almost as sapient as us, the rabbits... not so much

Chimps are not human...or even nearly human(sentient?). They are perhaps genetically closer to us which means they are better to test on than rabbits. Personally I would like a ban on testing fluffy rabbits...and more testing on chimps, as it seems less wasteful.

Ironically we already do trials on humans, even in progressive countries, which are done by those who have no other means of income, and with no understanding of the risks involved. I actually think that is morally wrong.

Look at the research. All evidence points to chimps being every bit as sentient (feeling, percieving, conscious, capable of experienceing subjective reality) as we are, and in almost exactly the same manner - their response to physical and social stimulus parallels ours almost perfectly. They are generally accepted as less sapient (inteligent, wise, capable of abstract thought) than us, but the difference is not as wide as you might think - roughly comparable to a 4 to 5-year old human child IIRC.

They are generally accepted as less sapient (inteligent, wise, capable of abstract thought) than us, but the difference is not as wide as you might think - roughly comparable to a 4 to 5-year old human child IIRC.

4 and 5 years old kids can talk, read, write and paint recognizable objects. Chimps cannot. They may be smart but they are not at the same level as even a 4-5 year old child.

Correction, they lack fine motor control and vocal apparatus capable of producing speech. Teach them sign language and provide incentive to learn it comparable to speech for a human child and (IIRC) they actually learn even faster than humans for the first few years of their life and then plateau off. We seem to have a lot of neural wiring specifically geared for speech - the ability to communicate complex thoughts is probably the single largest advantage we have over other apes, it allows for collaborati

Nature itself is one constant experiment to promote successful genes and weed out unsuccessful ones. That fear of falling from a great height you have? Millions or billions of creatures had to fall from cliffs for that. Those wonderful ocular orbs which are versatile to see in bright sunlight and very dim night light, millions or billions of creatures that could not see as well were caught and eaten by predators, too.

These experiments that scientists are doing, what maybe at most a 100 thousand creatures died in the last century for them? And what about all the people that were saved by that? The ratio of benefit vs suffering is much better from the experiments we carry out on our own, rather than the giant wasteful experiment that nature carries out.

I have to disagree. Yes, creatures die all the time, that mutation are the key to evolution. But by your own argument why whouldn't we simply lock *you* in the cage for experimentation? The results would be far more useful than those from chimps.

You can claim to embrace a world without moral consideration, but I'm betting the instant its you being tortured on the front lines of scientific advancement you're going to start crying about fairness and justice and your rights being violated. But hey, clearly

No, that wasn't his claim. His claim is that nature is a world without moral consideration, and we're treating chimps no worse than nature does (and far better than chimps treat others - they're vicious hunters), in a way that produces real and measurable moral good as a consequence.

When a hunter eats its prey, what benefit does the prey have? You may question the morality of the experiments, but the point is in nature, one side benefits and one side does not. It's equal from a morality perspective, except that in one case, the winning side gains a meal, which is temporary, and the other we gain knowledge which is permanent.

A lot of the research that was only possible using animals then can now be done by non-invasive means and computer simulations. The day when almost all research can be done this way is not far off. This is not because the new ways are ethically better (even though they are). It is because the new ways allow faster and more comprehensive studies at much lower total costs. It is indeed time to consider using legal ways to force the biological R & D in

>The day when almost all research can be done this way is not far off.

Maybe not on geologic timescales...

Sure, we'll have simulated test subjects suitable for high school and maybe even undergraduate level "experiments" before long. But we're probably a long way away from being able to simulate even the simplest animals on a molecular level, and anything short of that has limited utility to original research. Sure, if we simulate all the known chemical responses then we can get a first-order approximation of reactions to screen for any unanticipated side effects within the realm of known responses, and millions of mice and grad student hours will be saved from time-consuming preliminary experiments (presumably I can set my experiment running and come back in the morning to see in painstaking detail the possible progress of a ten-year exposure). But that won't actually tell you anything about the effect on poorly understood processes, which at present are still most of them.

Computer simulations are a good place to start... but we're still a long way from having simulations that give great predictions. In order to model something, you must fully understand it. We don't. Any simulation we run is based upon our limited understanding, and cannot lead to new knowledge. They can help us prevent mistakes that we could have foreseen instead of discovering them through testing, but they cannot confirm that a given hypothesis has a basis in fact.

Laws that encourage rethinking the research process are a good thing right now, as it is definitely the case that a lot of unnecessary and costly research is being done on animals when it could be done better using advanced technology. A key part of the problem is that too many of today's researchers are only trained in the techniques that were made elegant 100 years ago and naturally see the increasing use of newer technology as a threat to their way of life. It is much more than a threat to their liveliho

"A key part of the problem is that too many of today's researchers are only trained in the techniques that were made elegant 100 years ago and naturally see the increasing use of newer technology as a threat to their way of life."

I do biological research for a living, and have done so for many years, in multiple different fields, in different universities and now in the biotech/pharma industry. No technique I use existed 100 years ago any more than any technique a programmer uses existed 100 years ago. The majority of biochemistry and molecular biology techniques that I use have their primitive origins in the 1960s-1990s, depending on what the technique is, and the overwhelming majority have been heavily modified, adapted, repurposed, and improved since their introduction. Far from being afraid of new technologies and new techniques biologists are absolutely driven to use them, find them, adapt them, and invent them. Who do you think comes up with new techniques, including computer simulations relevant to biological research? People who do biological research of course! There are whole research journals devoted to nothing but new techniques, every one of them invented by some variety of biologist! There are hundreds of biotechnology companies where biologists do little else besides come up with new techniques (yes, including computer simulations and programs) that they can then package and sell to other biologists. Pharmaceutical companies spend many millions of dollars testing new techniques--I've got several different projects assigned to me right now that are nothing but testing and adapting new technologies. A pharmaceutical company that is not constantly innovating goes bankrupt, and a biologist who doesn't innovate is an unemployed and starving biologist.

Then these laws will not affect your research, or that of all the other biologists who have kept pace with technology, huh? They would probably only affect that small percentage of repetitious experimental work that is done by corporations seeking approval for new cosmetics, food additives, clothing treatments, and so on. What would that be? Only 90% of all the research that is being done today?

According to USDA, there were 1.1 million animals used in research in 2010 (the latest year of data

Then these laws will not affect your research, or that of all the other biologists who have kept pace with technology, huh? They would probably only affect that small percentage of repetitious experimental work that is done by corporations seeking approval for new cosmetics, food additives, clothing treatments, and so on.

There is a cost associated with regulation. Let us say that there is a group of scientists doing work to detect the biological basis of cancer that does not harm the chimpanzees in any way. They now have to go through the additional steps of getting permits for the most trivial of tasks -- such as transporting the animals from one lab to another. This is not necessary regulation, and it is associated with a small cost that will directly (though in small magnitude) diminish the effectiveness of the scienc

If this is medical school is in the USA, you and your fellow students are undergoing a very thorough indoctrination in the appropriate use of clinical detachment. Those who cannot handle that skill set rarely finish the course.

Well, in that case, we ought to be allowed to experiment on humans against their will, surely. I mean, chimps are similar to us, but they're not identical, and those dissimilarities slow down human-applicable research. if vivisecting a few hundred screaming humans can advance lifesaving medical science, why, it would be selfish not to strap them down!

I didn't look up the figure. I guess I was a bit too unconcerned for the fuzzy little animals... until they're on my plate I suppose... Anyway, I suggest a viewpoint, and you call me a moron and and a sociopath? And then you tell me that I'm impossible to reason with?

Must be awesome being right all the time. Too bad all of us morons have to ruin it for you by opening our mouths without knowing the true and higher path *ahem*.

Some points: (1) All figures in the article are from organisations who are known for their exaggerated estimates (the article itself says that the figures are "inflated"); and (2) even if that were not the case, the 115,000 figure is for primates, the vast majority of which will have been monkeys that are specially bred for the purpose to ensure that they aren't carrying any diseases which could effect experimental results. Chimps are very rarely used as lab animals because they are slow breeders, and sexua

Who says we don't experiment on humans? Remember, to various groups inside humanity, many people outside the group are experimental fodder.

Consider the various religious who, at times, might view those of other religions / non-religions to lack that something special, and thus, fall short of the privileges of full citizen of whatever; however, they might still be deemed as having some value as test subjects; the same may be said from the other side, that of atheism, whereby the religious are seen are brain-

Well, I think the point is that in developed nations we do not do the same types of involuntary experimentation on humans that we do on non-humans, and people are generally outraged when they hear about it being done in developing countries.

On another note though, you would be surprised at how good the simulations actually are. The issue often comes down to results being ignored if they do not have the political marketing behind them. Generally the decision makers what simulations that back up what they

No, that'd be tossed out by any journal for having horrible methodology. None of those are experiments. An experiment isn't just seeing something happening and noting the results. You need tight controls that get rid of every possible unwanted variable that can be removed.

I am all for testing on animals if it is helpful (i am not making a distinction on if it is or not)

but in general, i care more about animals than people. animals dont know right from wrong, and people who abuse animals are lower than anyone except for child abusers. If i had to pick between an animal like a dog or a cat and a human that I dont know (and most that I do know) im saving the dog or cat.

Either you're a troll or a traitor to your own kind. But no matter if the latter, we can simply apply your own view to yourself - given the choice between saving your life and the life of any random human, we must not choose you. You are too ignorant of the subtle bonds that keep human beings in any semblance of order and progress as a species to be useful and therefore are completely expendable. Fortunately for you, you live in the western world, and even at your poorest you have had insane advantages over

> which makes not helping the human a crimeNo, generally speaking the law makes a clear distinction between perpetrating a crime and failing to intervene in one. The alternative would mean prosecuting every witness who failed to intervene in a crime, and suddnely you would lack any witnesses at all (or if you're cynical would require that everyone give all their wealth above subsistence level to saving the lives of those dying of poverty, which the rich would never let become law)

How long will you put up with your neighbor committing atrocities in the name of Science when there are better (more ethical, less costly, and more accurate) ways of getting the answers?

We have a good and growing arsenal of non-invasive research tools that can be used directly on humans. They appear not to be used as often as they could be, and the most likely reason for that is that researchers who have devoted their careers to learning to use electric sh

Well, chimps are roughly equivalent to a human child of four or five on pretty much every scale but vocalization and future potential so I'd say that's a pretty Faustian bargain. Be speciest all you want, just realize that you've given up all moral standing to complain should aliens ever arrive to harvest us for our delicious organ meats.

When it comes to the Great Apes, I think there are serious ethical questions to be raised. These animals are our closest relatives, sharing, even if in lesser degrees, many of our cognitive and psychological features. I don't think it is going too far to call them sentient, and while I realize that this very close physiological and neurological relationship to humans make them valuable as test subjects, I just can't support their continued use in such a way.

So is sentient important or how close they are to us? Perhaps you mean both.So if we get proof that they are NOT sentient, then we can go on using them as test subjects?

If you want to protect them, tell it how it is: they LOOK too much like us on the outside. I am sure you are well aware that pigs are also often used, because they resemble people in many ways, yet they do not look like us (and they produce bacon) so that is less problematic for many.

This has nothing to do with pollution, or the misuse of the planets finite resources. Its about everything from research on dogs means diabetics today don't die, or humans don't do blind by spaying shampoo in baby rabbits eyes (the fact that the discussion is about chimps at all annoys me...as they are prettier). Its not pretty, its ugly science. The only real question is the validity of that science.

There's also the question of ethics. We have data from the Nazi human experimentation on hypothermia, and w

If they aren't being utilized aren't they technically already sheltered? Would there be better conditions at a different shelter? I'd like to know what sort of daily conditions the "un-utilized" chimps have.

I'd bet they are, at best, kept in a relatively sterile cage rather like a dog kennel. Shelters on the other hand tend to acknolwedge that these are animals almost as psychologically sophisticated as us and provide vegetation, recreational facilites, and usually large open-air spaces. Ask any human prisoner and I'll bet good money that they say that getting time outdoors, even in the generally bleak and barren prison yard, is a precious privilege. And while we can think a lot better than chimps our emoti

These chimps were bred specifically for this purpose and wouldn't exist otherwise. Being alive solely to undergo a procedure you never got the chance to even realise, let alone agree/disagree with, makes you just "material with a specific function" and is about as dehumanising as it gets.IMO likening it to human prisoners is off the mark.

The question is whether we should be allowed to create living, feeling, intelligent beings for experimental purposes.That this helps and saves members of our own species is

So why not breed humans in cages for experimental research? Then they'd just be "material with a specific function" as well. Same argument. If we discovered tomorrow that humanity was actually a breeding colony created by alien researchers would that somehow reduce the value of your life to you?

As for your second paragraph you leave a gaping ethical hole: what of the intelligent beings created illegally? We're probably not far from the point of being able to manipulate organisms to develop human-class s

So why not breed humans in cages for experimental research? Then they'd just be "material with a specific function" as well. Same argument. If we discovered tomorrow that humanity was actually a breeding colony created by alien researchers would that somehow reduce the value of your life to you?

Because we agree that this would be cruel, "do unto others what you wish done unto you", "we can do better than that", etc. We think it abhorrent to regard other people as material.But to be perfectly honest, I don't see the life of a bird anywhere near equivalent to the life of a human, i.e. even though birds have intelligence >0 and show feelings in form of caring towards their young, the classical "you can only save one" scenario would be no real contest IMO. Is it "speciesism"? Where does it stop? Ca

If they aren't being utilized aren't they technically already sheltered? Would there be better conditions at a different shelter? I'd like to know what sort of daily conditions the "un-utilized" chimps have.

he meant PETA shelters.. you know, so that they chimps wouldn't be wasting precious food from humans anymore.

Partly because there's been a decreasing number of cases where the scientific consensus is that the use of chimpanzees as animal models is needed, relative to alternatives. Since you need to convince an Institutional Review Board (for any study, not only involving chimps) that your study is necessary, beneficial, and the best choice relative to alternatives when considering both scientific merit and ethics, there are a decreasing number of cases where IRBs approve chimpanzee studies. Cost is also a factor besides IRB issues: if you can do something without chimps, it's usually cheaper to take that option.

Here's a blurb from the National Research Council's 2011 study on the subject [amazon.com], in which they set up a "Committee on the Use of Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research" to assess the current situation and make recommendations:

While the chimpanzee has been a valuable animal model in past research, most current use of chimpanzees for biomedical research is unnecessary, based on the criteria established by the committee, except potentially for two current research uses:

1. Development of future monoclonal antibody therapies will not require the chimpanzee, due to currently available technologies. However, there may be a limited number of monoclonal antibodies already in the development pipeline that may require the continued use of chimpanzees.

2. The committee was evenly split and unable to reach consensus on the necessity of the chimpanzee for the development of a prophylactic hepatitis C virus (HCV) vaccine. Specifically, the committee could not reach agreement on whether a preclinical challenge study using the chimpanzee model was necessary and if or how much the chimpanzee model would accelerate or improve prophylactic HCV vaccine development.

That's from the biomedical-research recommendations; their conclusions on behavior research were that chimpanzee models may still be quite valuable in that area. In addition, they recommended that genomics research using chimpanzee genomes was both valuable and of relatively little ethical concern, so should continue.

Inhuman practices by research groups gives science a bad name, even if you feel it is mere public perception. This will help science more that it hurts it given advances in simulation and lab grown tissue methods of research. The more social traction we can get the better.

The fact that the Association of Zoos and Aquariums is involved makes me suspect there might be something more to this story than just activist opposition to research involving primates. That association tends to not be very political, and instead is focused more on best practices for zoos, and how to combat things like poaching for the pet or traditional-medicine industries.

Your post reminded me about how Rhinos are endangered due to the black market value of their horn, the sale of which was made completely illegal in order to protect them...

There's numerous people who argue that if you legalized the sale of non-lethally harvested horns* from ranched Rhinos, their endangered status would go away because the black market would essentially be no more.

For better or worse, this proposed rule isn't really targeting the use of animals in research generally, only chimpanzees specifically. While some former uses of chimpanzees are being replaced by non-animal models (e.g. computational simulations), the most common replacements are other animals. In particular, genetically modified mice, which can now be modified to better mimic various kinds of human in vivo conditions, are used for a lot of things that other animals would've once been used for.

Yes, I agree, we need anti-vivisection legislation for all animals, not just chimps.Its a shame that even the government is shallow enough to only be concerned about "cute" animals or ones that most physically resemble humans.

Your understanding of science and biology seems to be stuck some time in the 19th century, and your terminology is intended to tie legitimate research to Nazi methods, which involved cutting people open without anesthesia.

Researchers go out of their way to treat chimps as well as possible and keep them comfortable, not just because they actually tend to get attached to the animals, but also because chimps are expensive and because discomfort destroys research results. There is no legislation requiring "vivi

"Survival of the Human species" means something very specific. It does not mean happiness, it does not mean quality of life, it does not mean saving lives.In fact saving the weak necessarily hurts the survivability of the species.

It can be easily shown that survival of the species does mean saving lives. That's just by definition of the word "survival."

It can be also shown that survival of one human may lead to survival of the whole civilization. Just as an example, if the inventor of the warp drive dies young, before inventing the thing, the Borg can assimilate the Earth before another inventor shows up. The civilization is facing many challenges today. Would we

That is like saying you help the survival of a single human by preventing paper cuts. Not to mention that our species is only here because of death and genocide on a massive scale. Natural Section only creates and maintains species with massive death; And without it any and all species would eventually become unviable.

"Would we better off if Steven Hawking died young? Will his work lead to construction of hyperspace drive 20 years later?" Then what about the guy who invented the

It can be easily shown that survival of the species does mean saving lives. That's just by definition of the word "survival."

Survival of a species means survival of genes, not individuals. Individual survival can be detrimental to species survival if the number of individuals becomes too large for its environment to support, in which case the species as a whole can become extinct.

Note also that civilization is new in both human and evolutionary terms (around 10,000 years old), so the jury is still out on whether it turns out to be something that helps with our long term species survival, or ends up being something whose short-ter

What this likely does is increase the cost of owning *any* chimp, for *any* purpose, including conservation, in the US. And decrease the benefit.

Most will be sold off abroad where the laws aren't so stringent. The conservationist sympathizers will feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves, because all the chimps *they see* will be "retired", but most of the chimps affected end up with worse lives.

While I am not in favor of harming animals for the sake of harming them. This statute if it goes into effect is a two sided coin. Many of the treatments that we have for human beings were first perfected on animals. Those same treatments also benefit animals. Right now, people, right or wrong, spend millions of dollars on various treatments for their pets that are basically the results of animal testing on the way to perfecting treatments for humans. If you take away that research avenue, then where will t

I feel that in less than 100 years animals, especially the apes, will have representatives in the legislatures of the developed world who will have voiting rights on behalf of their animal constituents.